Recently I launched a public conversation with San Jose parents, residents and educators about the city’s role in supporting schools, particularly in extending the school day. Parents cheered. Their 8-year-olds groaned.

It’s certainly true that San Jose’s mayor shouldn’t take over schools. There’s plenty of politics in schools already. Yet if our next mayor hopes to improve public safety, economic opportunity and city services, then supporting public education must become a top priority.

Why? As studies show:

Improving schools reduces crime and stymies gang recruitment. The California Dropout Research Project estimates that halving the dropout rate in San Jose high schools would prevent some 228 violent crimes annually.

Better schools open opportunities for better jobs. Economists can predict most of the difference in per capita incomes among American cities with a single statistic: the percentage of adults with a college degree.

Our schools need our engagement. We cannot sit idle while three San Jose students drop out of school for every 10 that graduate, or while 60 percent of public high school graduates fail to satisfy the entrance requirements of our state university system. Inaction condemns another generation to low-skill jobs, widening San Jose’s already-yawning gap between rich and poor.

Beyond supporting libraries, crossing guards and other traditional city services, what can a fiscally strapped city really do for our students?

We can partner with schools — whose revenue is tied to daily attendance — to expand our truancy abatement program. Such programs have been shown to reduce student absences and daytime crime, particularly burglaries.

We can ease the biggest obstacle for expanding innovative, high-performing public charter and other public schools: securing sites and permits for new campuses.

We can rally adults to get engaged with our schools, such as with the “1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds” tutoring initiative that I launched with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, local companies and my council colleagues.

A longer school day provides another means to close the achievement gap. In Massachusetts public schools, extended days boosted test performance by 44 percent in math, 19 percent in science and 39 percent in English. Seven out of eight schools in Washington, D.C., showed similar improvements.

Despite these compelling results, not every San Jose school should participate. Some kids already have ample access to sports, music, theater or tutoring programs after school. However, too many lack such opportunities. During those hours, they are vulnerable to victimization, and as they age, increasingly at risk for troublemaking.

For these kids, we need a mayor to convene stakeholders, help identify public and philanthropic resources and marshal political support for a longer school day.

How to pay for it? Some innovative public schools have extended students’ learning time without busting budgets or increasing teachers’ workloads. They often employ “learning labs,” using educational software for self-paced, individualized learning.

The Silicon Valley Education Foundation has partnered with several districts to explore an “ed-tech” bond measure to broaden the availability of this technology. Two federal programs — Supplemental Educational Services and 21st Century Community Learning Centers — already provide funding for extended-day learning for eligible schools.

We all agree that our next mayor must reduce crime, support economic growth and improve city services. Whether by extending the school day, or simply by supporting great public schools, we can help accomplish these goals and give every child an opportunity to achieve.

Sam Liccardo represents downtown District 3 on the San Jose City Council and is a candidate for mayor. He wrote this for this newspaper.

In closed door talks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein agreed to a major new water policy for California that sells out the Delta and guts Endangered Species Act protections. Sen. Barbara Boxer is fighting the good fight to remove the rider from her comprehensive water infrastructure bill, but it may take a presidential veto.